11 January 2013


If you've not already read the post below, read it now to understand my comments here.

Some time ago a female blogger started coming by here, leaving an intelligent comment now and then. I started reading her blog and we became "blogfriends". But it quickly became obvious there was a huge difference in our attitudes and outlook on life, particularly when the subject came to guns, and defending our families.
I tried to play the "Mama Grizzly" game with her...
"If your family was threatened, you'd come out with nails and fangs bared!"
But her response was that if the world sank to that level, she'd sooner be dead than use a firearm to kill another person, even a murderer.

I think most can imagine, IF we have a national emergency, society will break down. If there is no money to pay or otherwise reward them, I would think most Law Enforcement Officers would walk away from their posts to go home to protect their own families. (And if our machines break down or fuel is not available for them, those farther from work than walking distance will not make it to their jobs no matter what.)

But what about prisons?
What happens to the Jeffrey Dahmers, the Hannibal Lecters, the John Wayne Gacys of the world? Will prison officials summarily execute these people rather than turn them loose on the populace?
Maybe. Maybe not.
But some of them will be amongst us, preying on the weak and infirm.
And some of them will group together for mutual support.

Food and water, for those who have not prepared, will be a problem.
Food and water, for those of us who HAVE prepared, will be a problem.
To keep it, we'll have to defend it. We may THINK we can do that...
But what if we are faced with overwhelming numbers?
Then we might all feel my blogfriend had the right idea... we'd be better off just putting our own gun to our head.

And then there is the long-term scenario...
When there is NO food left, what happens then?
Donner Pass? The Andes Survivors?
Does desperation stoop to the level of hunting others simply for their caloric value?
We shudder.
But is it better to have thought about such things, to at least try to figure a way to surmount them?
Or do we just say, "I'd rather be dead"?

I still want to fight 'til my last breath.
But my last breath might come in a different way than I had originally thought.


lotta joy said...

I'm holding onto a similar post. I'm keeping it in "drafts" til I can figure out how far away from a humor blogger do I want to go. I've lost some long time readers when my thoughts started turning more toward my other feelings. I have two speeds: laughing or loading my gun.

I try to use both at the same time, but I'm leaning more and more toward the edgy future that may, or somehow may not happen.

I know that once they're in my house, I OWN them. But in my yard? I have no idea.

Old NFO said...

Yep, there ARE bad options... S M Stirling wrote a pretty good fiction series along those lines. the first book is called "Dies the Fire"

Bloviating Zeppelin said...

Having worked in law enforcement -- and still there employed -- for 41 years, I can tell you unequivocally that the mantra of the average criminal is simply this:

"What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine unless you're strong enough to stop me from taking it."

Plain and simple.

Talking won't do. Coffee won't do. A rational debate won't do.

A .357 magnum JHP to the forehead WILL do.


cary said...

Scenario one: The government gets all up in our business, going all socialist/communist on us. I fight til my last breath to keep the government from winning.

Scenario two: The world, as we know it, falls apart at the seams (EMP, tsunamis, earthquakes, short of the Second Coming) - I will fight for the survival of my family, but if it comes to dying of starvation, I will not let them suffer that fate.

Scenario three: The Second Coming - it's doesn't matter, it's all over.